A comparative assessment of irrigation and drainage characteristics for commercially available urethral catheters.

INTRODUCTION: We aimed to investigate irrigation and drainage characteristics of commercially available urethral catheters and determined which catheter offers the best flow characteristics. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Twelve different commercially available urethral catheters from three companies (Bard™, Rusch™ and Dover™) were investigated to compare their irrigation and drainage properties. Irrigation port, drainage port and overall cross-sectional areas for a 24Fr 3-way catheter was measured and compared. The maximum (Qmax) and average (Qavg) irrigation and drainage flow rates for each catheter was measured for 20-40 seconds using uroflowmetry. The primary endpoint was to determine which catheter offers optimal irrigation and drainage parameters. RESULTS: Overall cross-sectional area, irrigation port cross-sectional area, and drainage port cross-sectional area differed significantly for each 24Fr 3-way catheter assessed (p <0.001). The 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter consistently demonstrated the greatest maximal flow rate (Qmax: 5 ±0.3 ml/s) and average flow rate (Qavg: 4.6 ±0.2 ml/s) for irrigation. The 24Fr 3-way Dover™ catheter provided the greatest drainage properties (Qmax: 19.7 ±2 ml/s; Q avg: 15.9 ±5 ml/s). In the setting of continuous bladder irrigation, the 24Fr 3-way Rusch Simplastic™ catheter provided the highest irrigation rates (Qmax: 6.6 ±1.8 ml/s; Q avg: 4.6 ±0.9 ml/s). CONCLUSIONS: Three-way catheters demonstrate significant differences in their irrigation and drainage characteristics. The type of catheter selected should be based on the appropriate prioritization of efficient bladder irrigation versus efficient bladder drainage.

Prospective randomised controlled trial comparing trigone-sparing versus trigone-including intradetrusor injection of abobotulinumtoxinA for refractory idiopathic detrusor overactivity.

BACKGROUND: Botulinum toxin A is effective for treatment of idiopathic detrusor overactivity (IDO). The trigone is generally spared because of the theoretical risk of vesicoureteric reflux (VUR), although studies assessing injection sites are lacking. OBJECTIVE: Evaluate efficacy and safety of trigone-including versus trigone-sparing intradetrusor injections of abobotulinumtoxinA in patients with IDO. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-two patients from one centre were randomised to trigone-including or trigone-sparing injections. INTERVENTION: Injection of 500 U abobotulinumtoxinA diluted to 20ml into 20 trigone-including or trigone-sparing sites. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome measure was total overactive bladder symptom score (OABSS) at 6 wk. The OABSS questionnaire was completed at 0, 6, 12, and 26 wk. Baseline and postinjection urodynamic studies and micturating cystourethrograms were performed. Baseline values and subsequent time points were compared by t test. A mixed-effect model was used for repeated measures in time. RESULTS AND LIMITATIONS: For symptom scores at baseline compared with scores at 6 wk postinjection, the mean total OABSS improved from 22.4 to 8.7 (p<0.001) in the trigone-including group compared with 22.7 to 13.4 (p<0.03) in the trigone-sparing group. The difference in mean change from baseline was 4.4 points in favour of the trigone-including group (p=0.03). The total OABSS at 12 and 26 wk and the urgency subscale scores at 6, 12, and 26 wk showed significant improvement in favour of the trigone-including group. Mean postvoid residual volumes and clean intermittent self-catheterisation rates between the two groups were similar. No patients developed VUR. Performing injections under general anaesthetic was a limitation, as tolerability under local anaesthetic was not assessed. A further limitation is the lack of a trigone-only arm. CONCLUSIONS: Trigone-including injections are superior to trigone-sparing injections for the treatment of refractory IDO and did not cause VUR in this study.

Electroejaculatory stimulation for male infertility secondary to spinal cord injury: the Irish experience in National Rehabilitation Hospital.

OBJECTIVES: To examine the success rate of electroejaculatory stimulation in patients with acquired spinal injuries in a single Irish institution. The use of electroejaculatory stimulation is of benefit in patients with spinal cord injury who wish to have children. METHODS: A retrospective review of the Hospital In-Patient Enquiry scheme database and the patients' medical notes was performed. Any patient who had undergone electroejaculatory stimulation in the past 14 years was included. The quality of semen obtained and the pregnancy rate were assessed in relation to several variables, including patient age and level of spinal injury. RESULTS: From 1994 to 2008, 31 patients (29 patients with acquired spinal injury and 2 patients with a congenital spinal abnormality) had undergone electroejaculatory stimulation as a method of providing semen for assisted conception. Of the 31 patients, 6 had requested cryopreservation of their semen for future use and were therefore excluded from the pregnancy rate analysis. Of the 25 patients who had used the semen, 9 (36%) were successful in achieving pregnancy that resulted in living offspring. The semen analysis results were available for 15 patients. Three patients (one each with contaminated semen, poor semen quality, and an abandoned procedure) required testicular biopsy to extract viable sperm and subsequently achieved pregnancy. Lower spinal lesions (below T10) were associated with lower rates of pregnancy after electroejaculatory stimulation. One patient developed autonomic dysreflexia during the procedure, which was therefore abandoned. CONCLUSIONS: Electroejaculatory stimulation is an effective method of obtaining semen for reproductive purposes and is an option for fertility preservation in patients with spinal cord injury-related anejaculation.